 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baldwin v. Department of Motor Vehicles6/23/1995
CHIN, P.J.:
The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appeals from a judgment granting respondent John Robert Baldwin's petition for writ of mandamus, in which Baldwin sought to overturn the DMV's order revoking his driver's license. The DMV issued the order after receiving notice of Baldwin's third conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. The judgment directs the DMV to vacate its order and to issue Baldwin a restricted license in accordance with the order of the criminal court where Baldwin suffered his most recent conviction. The DMV contends that the superior court misapplied the relevant statutes in granting the writ. We agree, and therefore reverse the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
By letter dated September 13, 1993, the DMV informed Baldwin that it was revoking his driver's license for three years, effective August 10, 1993. The letter explained that the DMV was acting under Vehicle Code section 13352, subdivision (a)(5), based on Baldwin's three drunk driving convictions under section 23152, subdivision (a), within seven years. For purposes of this mandamus proceeding, Baldwin does not contest the validity of any of these convictions, and concedes that he is "a de facto third offender . . . ."
Baldwin then filed a petition asking the superior court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the DMV to vacate its revocation order. In the petition, he alleged that he had been arraigned in municipal court on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol ( § 23152, subd. (a)) with two prior convictions for that offense within seven years. He further alleged that the district attorney, with the municipal court's approval, struck one of the alleged prior convictions from the complaint because "he could not prove to be true." Baldwin then pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted one prior conviction. The petition alleged that the municipal court later sentenced him "pursuant to . . . section 23165 and granted him probation and imposed terms of probation pursuant . . . [section 23166, subdivision (b)], including an order that driving privileges be restricted . . . ."
Based on these alleged facts, Baldwin asked the superior court to order the DMV to vacate the revocation order and to issue him a restricted license in accordance with the municipal court's sentence. In support of his request, Baldwin argued that, because the municipal court sentenced him as a second-time offender and ordered restriction of his license as a condition of probation, section 23166, subdivision (b)(3), precluded the DMV from revoking his license under section 13352, subdivision (a)(5). The DMV opposed the petition, arguing that the municipal court's action did not alter the DMV's mandatory duty under section 13352, subdivision (a)(5), to revoke Baldwin's license upon receiving notice of his third conviction.
After hearing, the superior court granted the petition. It entered a judgment ordering issuance of a writ directing the DMV to vacate its revocation order and to issue Baldwin a restricted license "as ordered by" the municipal court. This timely appeal followed.
Discussion
In general, the punishment that a criminal court may impose for a conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 23152 depends on how many other convictions the driver has for that same offense. Section 23160 sets forth the punishments applicable to ". . . any person . . . convicted of a first violation of Section 23152 . . . ." Under section 23165, different punishments apply to a convicted drunk driver whose offense "occurred within seven years of a separat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|